People who say of Nazis “deal with bad ideas is by defeating them in the marketplace of ideas” are smuggling in the notion that Nazi ideas have not already been defeated on the merits, and are still valid and worthy to consider, or that Nazi "ideas" involve bloodless debate.
My rebuttal: Which Nazi ideas have not already been considered and rejected? Which have been unfairly thrown out? Which of them do you feel it is vital to rescue and restore and list on the "marketplace of ideas?"
And when have Nazis ever been defeated in the way you suggest?
Early this year, I wrote this paragraph about the phenomenon of the marketplace of ideas and the hateful defeated ideas that enjoy a perpetual indestructible listing on it in the name of freedom (and yes I'm aware of the irony that it's on Substack):
Link: armoxon.substack.com/p/the-case-f...
It seems they want to run the marketplace of ideas with a very familiar commercial strategy: advocate free markets until you gain sufficient share and then shut down all competition.
That’s the purpose and function of the concept of the “marketplace of ideas.” There is no such marketplace, and ideas don’t proliferate due to market forces. It’s a metaphor, based on an entirely fictional analogy.
The sole real-world effect of the concept is to preserve bad ideas.
Even taken at face value, free speech absolutism only makes sense in a world where speech isn’t a vector for potentially harmful action. But then that’s a world where speech has no power, and so its probably not worth fighting over. So not our world.
If you take it as what seems to actually be demanded in practice (IE freedom from criticism and challenge) then it becomes clearer how social media is seen as such a threat to it.
It’s the same libertarianism that concludes that a market is fine, but not a market in which anything bad can actually happen to me, the speaker, personally. A market of infinite social-rhetorical bailouts
It often becomes a way to rationalise accepting these ideas, people assume they can't really be Bad if people with power and status are perpetuating them. They must know something.
In the marketplace of ideas losing ideas have to go into bankruptcy and get dismantled, or else these hard right types are clearly into ideological communism
Because it behaves just like the marketplace of products, yes. So thinking that your good idea will win out over the rich people's fascist ideas is really dumb.
This is not an aside. It is central to the concept of subjecting ideas to market principles. Advertising changes people's behavior. Climate change denial is heavily promoted by international carbon fuel companies. Reputable scientists are portrayed as cranks or subversives who will make you poorer.
My guess: the market where the people in favor of said market know that when the crazy person grabs the gun and aims, the odds are that the gun won’t be aimed at them.
To be honest, in any context, if one refers to "the marketplace of ideas," I'm immediately suspect of their intentions and/or knowledge of said marketplace or said ideas.
I find usually that asking someone to openly and plainly state which Nazi ideals they personally feel haven't been given a fair shake usually makes people reconsider themselves. And if they don't, they're just outing themselves as supporting Nazi ideals..
This is the only tweet screenshot I have saved, because it’s such a good encapsulation of the problem with saying that facials should just be “debated “:
Scene: a group of leather-clad individuals, some with gimps in tow, prepared to participate in tonight's debate: "Facials Or No?"
Enter a cheery-eyed pink-clad aesthetician: "Uh ..."
anyone who thinks Nazi ideas have not already been shown to be harmful to everyone and everything, need to be banned from the Market Place of ideas until they have passed a 20th century history class
And honestly it's pretty much impossible to argue against genocidal ideologies. You can't change their mind by pointing out the harm caused because that's their whole GOAL. Debating nazis on morality is the political equivalent of "swiper no swiping."
*talking to a known serial arsonist*
"But you don't understand, what you're doing is actually NOT following fire safety laws and you might end up destroying property or even hurting someone."
